(January 28, 2012 at 5:42 am)Justtristo Wrote:

(January 23, 2012 at 12:52 pm)Diamond Wrote: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/01...?mobile=nc

Quote:The changes included referring to the country’s first black president as “Barack Hussein Obama,” and requiring students to “contrast” Confederate President Jefferson Davis’ inaugural address with Abraham Lincoln’s philosophical views.

To whitewash one of the darkest practices in America history, conservatives proposed that textbooks refer to the slave trade as the “Atlantic triangular trade.”

We have nutters like that in Australia who seek to whitewash the bloody conquest of this country by the British settlers from the Aborigines. At least in North America the native american tribes at least signed treaties when they gave their lands away. But the British settlers in Australia just took Aboriginal land, without any pretense to sign a treaty with the particularly nation they stole it from.

Search Keith Windschuttle and the The Fabrication of Aboriginal History and that will give you a fuller picture of this mentality.

If it is such a "Whitewash" then how do you know about it...??? how is it public knowledge if it is the "cover-up" you are trying to support?

I am of the opinion that your information is incorrect or at least biased Trist. And yes ALL countries native peoples suffered under the "English invasion/ colonialism" The American Indian just as much as the Aboriginal. The only group I am aware of who signed a treaty were the Maori of New Zealand and only because they had a social structure that the British recognised and could deal with.

Tennessee is a piece of shit. When I am talking to someone here, and they say something brilliant, I assume they're from somewhere else.

(January 28, 2012 at 7:54 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: If it is such a "Whitewash" then how do you know about it...??? how is it public knowledge if it is the "cover-up" you are trying to support?

I am of the opinion that your information is incorrect or at least biased Trist. And yes ALL countries native peoples suffered under the "English invasion/ colonialism" The American Indian just as much as the Aboriginal. The only group I am aware of who signed a treaty were the Maori of New Zealand and only because they had a social structure that the British recognised and could deal with.

Firstly, I have actually read the first volume of the The Fabrication of Aboriginal History by Keith Windschuttle and other works of his. Also I am familiar with the opinions of groups such as the Bennelong Society (which Windschuttle is a part of) which has some support from political figures (such as Keating government minister Gary Johns, former senator John Herron, the late Peter Howson).

If people holding opinions similar to the Bennelong society were in power, they would promote "sanitization" of the history of Australia to make the British colonists into saints and the Aboriginals into devils. Also they would also advocate the total assimilation of Aboriginals into the broader Australian culture, effectively wiping out their cultures. That segment I would suspected would be shared by a significant slice of the public who are more likely to have racist sentiments towards Aborigines than those people who don't hold those views I have outlined above.

Secondly, although there were numerous treaties signed with various American Indian nations, although they were often broken. This all recognised that the American Indian nations owned the land. Also in Canada there were numerous treaties (The Numbered Treaties) signed between the Crown and Native American nations along with the lines of the Treaty of Waitangi. I am not denying the treatment of the Native Americans was deplorable, however the authorities at least recognised the native american nations owned the land.

However only one treaty was ever signed between the British colonists and the assorted Aboriginal nations. That was the Batman's Treaty signed between John Batman and Wurundjeri people of what is now the Melbourne region. However the governor of NSW had the treaty voided because it was considered that the Wurundjeri land was owned by the crown. The legal concept behind the voiding of the treaty was terra nullus which was overturned in the Mabo case

So? Why are you so surprised? Why is it that if you are aboriginal you only get 7years for murder but if you are white you get life? Why did my 70year old mother have to go to school without shoes and her aboriginal friends had shoes? Where is the "whitewash" ?


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-31.700418,115.797571

(January 28, 2012 at 4:02 pm)aleialoura Wrote: Tennessee is a piece of shit. When I am talking to someone here, and they say something brilliant, I assume they're from somewhere else.

With that being said, am I to assume that you're not originally from Tennessee?

(January 28, 2012 at 9:13 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: So? Why are you so surprised? Why is it that if you are aboriginal you only get 7years for murder but if you are white you get life? Why did my 70year old mother have to go to school without shoes and her aboriginal friends had shoes? Where is the "whitewash" ?


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-31.700418,115.797571

Well, the period I was referring to was colonial times (before Federation), when the country was being "settled" by the white man. I cannot comment very much on the period after that (including our own era). Because I have not really read much into policies towards Aboriginals in the period after Federation.

However a treaty between the governments of Australia and the remaining Aboriginal nations I believe is the next step in the reconciliation process. After the apology from both state and federal governments for the wrong headed and racist policy of taking Aboriginal children from their parents.

(January 28, 2012 at 10:48 pm)Justtristo Wrote:

(January 28, 2012 at 9:13 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: So? Why are you so surprised? Why is it that if you are aboriginal you only get 7years for murder but if you are white you get life? Why did my 70year old mother have to go to school without shoes and her aboriginal friends had shoes? Where is the "whitewash" ?

Well, the period I was referring to was colonial times (before Federation), when the country was being "settled" by the white man.

I understand that this is in error Trist. Australia was not being "settled" until our 5th govenor. Up until that time it was the dumping ground for Europe's and in particular Great Britain's unwanted surplus population.

(January 28, 2012 at 10:48 pm)Justtristo Wrote: I cannot comment very much on the period after that (including our own era). Because I have not really read much into policies towards Aboriginals in the period after Federation.

Then you do not have the full story then?? Only a biased account??

(January 28, 2012 at 10:48 pm)Justtristo Wrote: However a treaty between the governments of Australia and the remaining Aboriginal nations I believe is the next step in the reconciliation process.

I understand that this assumption is invalid. Aboriginals never HAD nor Have "Nations or Clans". As it stands they are the favoured amongst our population as far a legislation is concerned and have lost the silent majorities support with their continued attacks on the people and the government. The structures are there for them to help themselves but it seems that they would rather be whinging, whining bludgers off the system than do anything themselves.

(January 28, 2012 at 10:48 pm)Justtristo Wrote: After the apology from both state and federal governments for the wrong headed and racist policy of taking Aboriginal children from their parents.

Which has done nothing for reconciliation. I am of the understanding that Australian Nation is offensive to them and a racist remark. What is needed is all the little tribes to 'reconcile' their own differences before they can become anything like a Nation. In the meantime, they behave as if they are some elitist demographic of the Australian Nation. Again; like every group/ tribe/ race it is the 1-10% doing most of the belly aching and the rest are getting on with their lives and doing well.

I also understand that the "Stolen generation" numbers are pitifully low compared to the "White Stolen Generation" ..no Trist..no more feeling guilty because we were dumped here, wrongly convicted, having our own children stolen from us but still managed to build a self-sustaining economy so that this select demographic of the Australian population can claim restitution.

Really Trist.... I would have thought your participation on this board/forum would have enlightened you to the fact that "You cannot help people who don't want to help themselves"

(January 28, 2012 at 11:18 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: I understand that this assumption is invalid. Aboriginals never HAD nor Have "Nations or Clans". As it stands they are the favoured amongst our population as far a legislation is concerned and have lost the silent majorities support with their continued attacks on the people and the government. The structures are there for them to help themselves but it seems that they would rather be whinging, whining bludgers off the system than do anything themselves.

Which has done nothing for reconciliation. I am of the understanding that Australian Nation is offensive to them and a racist remark. What is needed is all the little tribes to 'reconcile' their own differences before they can become anything like a Nation. In the meantime, they behave as if they are some elitist demographic of the Australian Nation. Again; like every group/ tribe/ race it is the 1-10% doing most of the belly aching and the rest are getting on with their lives and doing well.

I not denying that the behaviour of the leaders of the Aboriginal community is far from ideal and also I think special benefits just for Aboriginals is a bad idea. However there are many issues in the Aboriginal community (such as the life expectancy gap) which receive scant attention from governments.

Quote:I also understand that the "Stolen generation" numbers are pitifully low compared to the "White Stolen Generation" ..no Trist..no more feeling guilty because we were dumped here, wrongly convicted, having our own children stolen from us but still managed to build a self-sustaining economy so that this select demographic of the Australian population can claim restitution.

I fully support an apology by the governments of Australia for children who were stolen from unwed mothers when they were born. Among other wrong headed policies.

Back to the the policy of stealing aboriginal children from their parents, as I said earlier it was mostly based on policies aimed towards the full assimilation of Aboriginals into the rest of the Australian population. Thereby destroying Aboriginal cultures Sir Paul Hasluck a Menzies government minister and governor-general was the main champion of this particular policy.

Quote:Really Trist.... I would have thought your participation on this board/forum would have enlightened you to the fact that "You cannot help people who don't want to help themselves"

Actually I used to be really into that line "You cannot help people who don't want to help themselves". However I nowadays see it's limitations, not to mention I have realised that we Atheists cannot let Christians seize the moral high ground.

(January 28, 2012 at 11:52 pm)Justtristo Wrote: I not denying that the behaviour of the leaders of the Aboriginal community is far from ideal and also I think special benefits just for Aboriginals is a bad idea. However there are many issues in the Aboriginal community (such as the life expectancy gap) which receive scant attention from governments.

Wrong again. Which group has this "Life expectancy gap" ah yes the ones who insist on living on 'Tribal land' in the remote areas of Australia where even the whites are 1000km form medical aid.

(January 28, 2012 at 11:52 pm)Justtristo Wrote: I fully support an apology by the governments of Australia for children who were stolen from unwed mothers when they were born. Among other wrong headed policies.

And the apology to those unwed white mothers?? Non-existant

(January 28, 2012 at 11:52 pm)Justtristo Wrote: Back to the the policy of stealing aboriginal children from their parents, as I said earlier it was mostly based on policies aimed towards the full assimilation of Aboriginals into the rest of the Australian population. Thereby destroying Aboriginal cultures Sir Paul Hasluck a Menzies government minister and governor-general was the main champion of this particular policy.

What you are quoting is the xtian Great Britain policy as enacted by his majesty. Australia was not the only British 'colony' to have this policy.

(January 28, 2012 at 11:52 pm)Justtristo Wrote:

Quote:Really Trist.... I would have thought your participation on this board/forum would have enlightened you to the fact that "You cannot help people who don't want to help themselves"

Actually I used to be really into that line "You cannot help people who don't want to help themselves". However I nowadays see it's limitations, not to mention I have realised that we Atheists cannot let Christians seize the moral high ground.

The above makes no sense whatsoever Trist.

What are these limitations that you speak of??

(January 23, 2012 at 1:05 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I thought Obama was called Barack Hussein Obama? :-S

They wish to emphasise his non Christian middle name, as any other President in the History classes I went through never had any mention of their middle names.

In other words, they want to make him sound like a Muslim terrorist.

I know, it sounds petty...but thus is American politics.